michal_dubrawski

I am going slightly up because of the tense situation around Trump push for direct negotiations with Iran about their nuclear program.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/trump-threatens-there-will-be-bombing-if-iran-fails-to-make-peace-deal/

"WASHINGTON — US President Donald Trump threatened Iran on Sunday with bombing and secondary tariffs if Tehran did not come to an agreement with Washington over its nuclear program.
In Trump’s first remarks since Iran rejected direct negotiations with Washington last week, he told NBC News that US and Iranian officials were talking, but did not elaborate.
“If they don’t make a deal, there will be bombing,” Trump said in a telephone interview. “It will be bombing the likes of which they have never seen before.”"

https://www.reuters.com/world/iran-speaker-says-us-bases-will-be-struck-if-trump-attacks-iran-2025-03-28/

"March 28 (Reuters) - Tehran would strike U.S. bases in the region if Washington follows through on its warning of military consequences for Iran in the absence of a new nuclear deal, the speaker of the Iranian parliament said on Friday.
U.S. President Donald Trump said earlier this month that he had sent a letter to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, warning that "there are two ways Iran can be handled: militarily, or you make a deal.""

Interesting article "What the Iran War of 2025 Might Look Like" https://www.aei.org/op-eds/what-the-iran-war-of-2025-might-look-like/

• "Historically cautious, America’s approach to Iran seems to be changing under President Trump, especially after recent Iranian provocations, nuclear advancements, and direct attacks against Israel.

• The strategic deployment indicates preparations for significant military action if needed.

• However, attacking Iran is complex, requiring extensive bombing missions to disable Iranian defenses first. Israeli precision strikes demonstrate effectiveness, but risks remain.

• Key indicators of imminent action would include relocating U.S. aircraft carriers away from vulnerable positions in the Persian Gulf, signaling readiness for sustained operations."

"Israel assuaged those concerns with its retaliatory strikes in April and October 2024. Its precision also alleviated some concerns. Trump’s team understands also that the Israeli Navy pilots more German submarines than the German navy does. While the Jewish state needs weaponry, the Trump administration appears ready to oblige. One metric to determine U.S. seriousness will also be withdrawal of U.S. aircraft carriers from the Persian Gulf. This may sound counterintuitive, but carriers so close to Iran and in shallow water are vulnerable to drones, mines, speed boats, and anti-ship missiles. Parked 400 miles away in the northern Indian Ocean? U.S. aircraft could strike at Iran but not face retaliation."

I am staying at 2% for now.  While I don't believe the probability of substantial cooperation between Huawei and O-RAN Alliance in the next 6 months is 1% or higher, I still try to adjust the score for some announcements about some minor issue they would comment on cooperating about. This could be something like the recent minor Huawei concession to open "interface between configuration management and other parts" mentioned by @404_NOT_FOUND here. At the same time, I get the feeling that Huawei would not like to announce any collaboration with O-RAN or to even call giving them relevant information as "collaboration". If they make concession, they don't want their other clients to expect more steps or have more misplaced hopes for further collaboration. 

Some relevant news: "Heads of FCC, Senate Intelligence Hope to Convince Europe to Ditch Huawei":

The head of the Federal Communications Commission and the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee are teaming up to persuade European telecom companies to stop doing business with Chinese equipment-maker Huawei Technologies Co.
Senator Tom Cotton, an Arkansas Republican, and FCC Chairman Brendan Carr are working with the Trump administration “to castrate Huawei in Europe,” a spokesperson for Cotton said.
An FCC official confirmed that Carr and Cotton are working together. Neither Carr’s offices nor Cotton’s responded to requests for more information on what the partnership will entail or what measures they plan to take.

I am slightly reducing, but my reasoning largely stays the same as in previous forecast.

If we could expect the world to essentially be the same as today in the next 5 years, then my probability would be lower, but in the next 5 years some big changes will occur, and for us that future world is a foreign country.  My 6% probability mostly comes from this uncertainty of the model, as our mental models of the current world will fit less well to this new, unknown world of our future up to 5 years from now.

Good points made by @404_NOT_FOUND  here. I am not super confident forecasting the behavior of Kim Jong Un based on our understanding of his incentives in the situation, but if he is currently benefiting from the cooperation with Russia, they may not be incentivized to draw attention to their nuclear arsenal problem.

The recent "ANNUAL THREAT ASSESSMENT OF THE U.S. INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY" that was published this month, stated: "North Korea is probably prepared to conduct a nuclear test and continues to flight test ICBMs so Kim can threaten the Homeland."

Based on "Intelligence Community Directive (ICD) 203: Analytic Standards" numerical definition of the term "probably" used by the US Intelligence Community is 55%-80% range. 

As this Newsweek article reported:

U.S. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard said North Korea may be ready to conduct another nuclear test "on short notice,"

I read this as an indication of the capability of North Korea rather than a judgment that they intend to conduct such a test. The use of the term "short notice" suggests that there may be minimal warning - I would read it as a few days at maximum. 

I see the changes affecting NATO security guarantees and European security architecture.

Trump's recent remarks about Article 5 further erode the trust in NATO guarantees (below quote from the Guardian article):

"US President Donald Trump has cast doubt on his willingness to defend Washington’s Nato allies, saying that he would not do so if they are not paying enough for their own defense.
“It’s common sense, right,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office. “If they don’t pay, I’m not going to defend them. No, I’m not going to defend them.”
Trump said he had been of this view for years and shared it with Nato allies during his 2017-2021 presidential term. Those efforts prompted more spending from other members of the 75-year-old transatlantic alliance, he said, but that “even now, it’s not enough.”
He added: “They should be paying more.”"

Also former UK defense secretary Ben Wallace commenting about the current situation of NATO:

"I think Article 5 is on life support. (...) If Europe, including the United Kingdom, doesn't step up to the plate, invest a lot on defence and take it seriously, it's potentially the end of the Nato that we know and it'll be the end of Article 5. (...) Right now, I wouldn't bet my house that Article 5 would be able to be triggered in the event of a Russian attack… I certainly wouldn't take for granted that the United States would ride to the rescue." 

As @RUN_RWC mentioned in their comment, there was an ABC report that the Trump administration considers giving up the position of Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR).

I still think the current timeframe is too early for any invasion meeting the criteria specified in this question to happen, but at the same time, plenty of changes can happen in two years' time if the current trends would continue.

As we observe these changes frequently, we need to beware of gradual change blindness - like a parent who sees their child every day and doesn’t notice how tall they’re getting, while a relative visiting once a year is stunned by the growth. The change is real, but it’s hidden in plain sight, unfolding in increments too small to notice on the daily or monthly basis.

Good comment by @TBall here. I also like the opening paragraphs of the Foreign Affairs article which TBall shared there:

"For years, Iran watchers have been spreading rumors about the demise of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. When the Islamic Republic’s Assembly of Experts pushed back a major 2024 meeting from September to November, some theorized that Khamenei was ailing. When Khamenei spent time at that meeting detailing how to choose his successor, others asserted that his end was near. And whenever Khamenei disappears for too long, people speculate that the supreme leader has already died.

Right now, rumors of Khamenei’s demise are greatly exaggerated. He is still working, and his comments about succession merely restated Iran’s constitutional provisions. But from an actuarial perspective, Khamenei’s reign is almost certainly in its final years. The supreme leader is an 85-year-old cancer survivor. In 2022, when he visited the Imam Reza shrine in 2022, a Shiite holy site in the Iranian city of Mashhad, he told those traveling with him that it would probably be his last such trip. In the not-too-distant future, the Assembly of Experts will have to anoint a new supreme leader."

First paragraph reminds me of my comment about "All the deaths of Ali Khamenei" 

Interesting articles about relatively recent developments:

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/05/us/politics/trump-iran-nuclear-deal.html

"President Trump on Wednesday vowed to negotiate a “verified nuclear peace agreement” with Iran, saying he wants to avoid a military clash by reaching a deal that prevents Tehran from acquiring an atomic weapon.

Mr. Trump, who withdrew from the 2015 nuclear accord that Iran negotiated with the Obama administration, effectively called for a do-over on Wednesday. In an early morning post on his social media site, the president said the United States and Iran “should start working on it immediately, and have a big Middle East Celebration when it is signed and completed.”

“I want Iran to be a great and successful Country, but one that cannot have a Nuclear Weapon,” Mr. Trump wrote.

The diplomatic entreaty by the president came just hours after he announced a very different strategy toward Iran: a return to the “maximum pressure” campaign that he employed during his first term to threaten the country’s religious leadership with vast economic sanctions and other measures designed to isolate the regime."

https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20250207-iran-s-khamenei-warns-against-negotiating-with-us

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/irans-khamenei-cites-need-further-develop-irans-military-after-trump-threats-2025-02-12/

https://www.iranintl.com/en/202502239221